pellinor

Didn't they tell that these distances are moddable? Has anyone found out how to mod them yet? At least there are no config values for them.

* The tweakScale config for interstellarFuelSwith looks like it does not conserve the mass ratio of tanks. The TweakScale default was changed to preserve the mass ratio, so mass of stock tanks scales with scale^3 (since v2.0). Just mentioning this, in case you missed the change. * If I understand these instructions right you're supposed to first install the latest TweakScale and then copy your bundled version (which might be older) over it? This is bound to cause problems at some point. So you should only do one OR the other. I am generally a bit skeptical about bundling because it can cause people to overwrite the mod with an older version, and keeps outdated versions alive longer than necessary.

Update: v2.1 * recompile for KSP 1.0.2 * patch for new stock part Neither KerbalStuff nor Curse know the KSP 1.0.1 or 1.0.2 versions. So it is labeled with 1.0 there. - - - Updated - - - There is a way for tech tree integration but it is not widely used and not very comfortable. You can set a techRequired list for a scaletype or a part, so that the scaleFactors are unlocked at specific techs. The problem with this is (for stack parts) that you can easily end up in situations where the default scale of a part is not unlocked yet. Personally, my approach is to just apply a generous portion of common sense in early career.

Neither KerbalStuff nor Curse offer the KSP 1.0.1 or 1.0.2 versions. So should I just label my mod with 1.0 there?

What units are you adding up here, is this kg or KSP units? KSP resource units are a mess, so 1 xenon has a different mass (and tank volume) than 1lf / 1ox.

* Now that the SPH can load VAB-crafts: if a craft is placed high up in the VAB and loaded in the SPH, it ends up outside the building and only the shadow is visible. Please move it down in this case.

KSP 1.0.1: same procedure as everytime, waiting for KAE and moduleManager to update... EDIT: new Version is up! KAE is updated and MM seems still to work.

Just don't complain afterwards if something breaks in a not-so-obvious way. It's fine to try unsupported things, just people tend not to remember it when complaining about bugs or corruption afterwards.

No idea, but my hopes are pretty low. Since I'm not part of the QA/experimental team I can't even see if the issue (that biotronic reported last year) ever made it to the internal bug tracker.

Crew capacity is not scaled because upscaling would break the game (not enough seats in the IVA causing bad things). Since scaled crew pods will look weird in any case I'd consider this as an edge case of an already dubious scaling support, and prefer not to complicate the plugin with hardcoded special treatment. This is also why scaling of crewed parts is now switchable and disabled per default. - - - Updated - - - AAh, so this was a problem on my side! I'll fix it like you suggest. - - - Updated - - - Update: small bugfix release! * restored maxThrust exponent to fix the editor CoT display * added patch for new KIS container * survive mistyped scaleTypes * version number with 'v' to make CKAN happy (on KerbalStuff I forgot it in v2.0)

Small Dev update: * surviving mistyped scaletypes

Thanks for your help. So this should work again soon.

Yes, there is a switch now (in ScaleExponents.cfg). You can even change with MM, so that the setting survives a TweakScale update. To make crew pods scaleable via MM just add the following into a .cfg file anywhere inside GameDate. @TWEAKSCALESETTINGS:BEFORE[TweakScale] { @noScaledCrewPods = 0 }

It already should be on CKAN, I'll look into it. - - - Updated - - - Still haven't understood what happened there, for now I just patched it by removing tweakScale support for that part. - - - Updated - - - You are on an outdated KSP version, using the win64 version (that is known to be unstable and not supported by most modders), have many other mods, and load an unknown craft file that might already be broken in some way. Sorry if I can not give any useful advice for this case. All I can say is that your case is not a known issue with TweakScale. And sorry for the late response, I'm still catching up with all the feedback since the KSP1.0 release.

See here: It seems like the overheating is consistent with the new heat system. Scaled engines should heat up at the same rate. Once some temperature difference is built up, small engines can radiate their heat better so they stay cooler. - - - Updated - - - Small dev update: * restored maxThrust exponent to fix the editor CoT display * added patch for new KIS container

Ah so this is why large engines (which tend to have high TWR) usually have large heatProduction. Now this starts to make sense. So scaled engines (with preserved TWR) should all start heating up at the same speed. When some heat is built up, small parts should emit their heat more easily (more surface/mass), so large ones get hotter. This might explain what I see for TweakScaled engines.

Another Observation concerning the heatProduction: TweakScale can not scale it anymore (maybe there is no kspField behind the config value, or it is only evaluated once and too early). When heatProduction is not touched, enlarged engines tend to overheat faster, while downscaled engines heat up less (TWR is the same for all of them). No idea how this goes together with the larger engines generally having higher heatProduction values.

Nice! I didn't notice this yet. Not a bug. The CoM of a real jet engine is in that position. Since KSP only models the nozzle part, planes with a jet nozzle at the end always had the problem of being tail-heavy. The new engines should make plane building much more comfortable.

Update: the release is out!

Update: the release is out!

Basically just play the game using some scaled parts and be a bit skeptical about their behavior. So a double size wing should give 4 times the lift. What might happen is that this factor is 1x or 16x instead. If you notice something that does not look right, try to boil it down to a simple case, like a small craft with only stock parts that behaves obviously wrong. So testing does not need to be boring work, I think the most important part is that you examine and discuss strange behavior instead of just strutting and duct-taping your ships arount the problems. Lift, mass and (dry)cost of wings is supposed to go with scale^2. So the same area should give the same lift, regardless if it is one big part or multiple small ones. EDIT: I flew my first plane in 1.0! First impression is that 1xnormal wing and 4x50% wing behave about the same. Nice and stable little plane, flying is nice but slowing down on the runway is a lot more difficult now.

I would not expect differences between operating systems. But if you are interested in testing some scaled wings I'd be grateful. Control surfaces look unchanged but wings moved to a proper partModule and the exponents are pretty much guesswork so far. EDIT: lift, mass and (dry)cost is supposed to go with scale^2.

I understand that you want to get this ship to work, but can you reproduce this with something simpler than a huge ship from an old KSP version with modded parts that was broken and then fixed by hand? At the moment I find it hard enough to judge the behavior of a few basic parts, now that both the part stats and the underlying physics have changed. EDIT: I was seeing wrong mass in the editor, a wrong map view display would surprise me (because scales/masses do change in the editor but not in mid-flight).

The heatProduction values for engines look like a mess, and KSP ignores my scaling. More details here. Current status is that enlarged engines seem to produce too much heat. On the other hand they have more power per surface area, so this might be consistent behavior. - - - Updated - - - It is not just about larger fairings but the whole scaling freedom, like 30cm or 1.5m. Stuff like this can be very useful for people who build for aestethics. - - - Updated - - - So far I only know of a problem with the stock VAB display, which does not update mass correctly for scaled parts. In my small test mechjeb's VAB display agrees with the stock map view. - - - Updated - - - Thanks, I added them. Was an oversight when searching for new stock parts.

Should be fixed with the correct nose cone patches (in the dev version since some time yesterday I think).